[CentOS] tinydns/djbdns opinion poll

[James B. Byrne]

Message-ID: <VA.000036bd.05799d0c at news.conactive.com>

On: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 10:31:23 +0100, Kai Schaetzl
<maillists at conactive.com> wrote:
>
> Ian Forde wrote on Wed, 11 Feb 2009 20:01:21 -0800:
>
>> locate rpmsave
>> locate rpmnew
>
> rpmsave is left from *un*installations, rpmnew is the *new* file,
> there is no file overwritten. rpm usually doesn't overwrite files
> if they got changed. And I haven't seen any overwrites with all
> the bind updates in the past months. So, I cannot back James'
> claim.
>
> Kai

I cannot answer whether this situation is still the case, and I know
that it was not always the case, but on the last but one update to
bind my configuration files were all renamed to .rpmsave and there
were no .rpmnew files created, only the default config files left in
place of the old ones.  I also believe, be cannot be sure, that this
particular revision was a "minor" (9.X.y) as opposed to "tiny"
(9.x.Y) update.  I also believe that the same thing happened on the
last update as well but, as I now do bind updates far more
circumspectly, I may simply be confusing the present remedy with the
original problem.

In any case, the problem was not expected and it caused considerable
grief until the problem was identified and the cause determined.  It
is just something that anyone hosting their own DNS should consider.
The consequences of a dysfunction name server can be quite severe
and can initially evidence itself in places that one would not
immediately associate with DNS issues.

-- 
***          E-Mail is NOT a SECURE channel          ***
James B. Byrne                mailto:ByrneJB at Harte-Lyne.ca
Harte & Lyne Limited          http://www.harte-lyne.ca
9 Brockley Drive              vox: +1 905 561 1241
Hamilton, Ontario             fax: +1 905 561 0757
Canada  L8E 3C3